Hamlet on Trial Essay

1089 Words3 Pages

It is man’s natural instinct to protect himself. Therefore, that person would do anything in his power to be safe, especially if they committed a criminal act; but that does not make them innocent. In the palace of the Denmark Royal family, there was a criminal act that was carried out by the beloved Lord Hamlet. He not only had slain the King’s advisor, Polonius, but also his own friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as well. In his defence, Lord Hamlet’s attorney pleads the insanity defence. However, after reviewing the case and analysing different events that had taken place, the crown is convinced that Lord Hamlet’s insanity is just a mask that he puts on to escape from the responsibility of his bloody deeds. The many points that were considered that brought the crown to this conclusion include: how he had initially disclosed his plan to act mad in order to avenge his father’s death, as well as, on several occasions; Hamlet himself reveals to certain people that he is sane. Lastly, his acts of insanity are only present in front of certain people and not around others. All these points prove that Hamlet is only pretending to be mad and should be punished for his actions. After the death of King Hamlet, Hamlet proclaims that he saw his father’s ghost when he, Horatio and Bernardo were in the forest. The ghost spoke to the trio and apparently told them that Lord Hamlet’s uncle, Claudius, now the King, was behind the murder of his father. This troubled Hamlet and at that point he came up with a plan to see whether the ghost’s prophecy was true. A huge part of his plan included him acting insane. “As I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put on an antic disposition on” (I,I,191). This statement is significant as Hamlet himself ... ... middle of paper ... ... way for him to escape his criminal deeds. Insanity is when a person cannot decipher right from wrong or know the effects of their actions. They are generally unaware of what they are doing. If in a state of insanity you commit a crime, the charges are dropped and this has been done throughout history. However, in Hamlet’s case all evidence shows that not only do Hamlet’s actions have reason behind them, but he is well aware of the result that they would trigger. In all the points given, it is seen, that the motif behind Hamlet’s disposition is carried out sanely, even though to others they may seem mad, to Hamlet and those who know his intentions they are not. Therefore, the evidence that has been presented proves that Hamlet was in a normal state the entire time, and hence, he should be punished for the deaths of the three people for which he is responsible for.

Open Document